Discussion: Health And Healthcare II

[chaseter]

I know poor unions. Instead, all of our healthcare premiums rise but of course it isn't Obama's fault. They were going to rise anyways right! Lets add this to the list of things caused by George Bush.

I really think Obama could grow horns and open up the San Andreas fault to allow demons and fire to be released and you would say that he needed to do this to fight off the more evil people, the Republicans.

 

[dnno1]

I know poor unions. Instead, all of our healthcare premiums rise but of course it isn't Obama's fault. They were going to rise anyways right! Lets add this to the list of things caused by George Bush.

I really think Obama could grow horns and open up the San Andreas fault to allow demons and fire to be released and you would say that he needed to do this to fight off the more evil people, the Republicans.

Health care premiums aren't rising because of unions. They are rising becasue of increasing medical costs. A lot of that has to do with new medical technologies, new medical proceedures and material expenses. Unions (if they are strong enough) actually reduce the actual cost to the employee by requiring the employer to either share the cost or take on the entire expense.

 

[BlackLantern]

are you blaming advances in medical technology though? Is a company that produces Xray and MRI machines supposed to take a hit because its for "the general welfare"??

 

[chaseter]

Health care premiums aren't rising because of unions. They are rising becasue of increasing medical costs. A lot of that has to do with new medical technologies, new medical proceedures and material expenses. Unions (if they are strong enough) actually reduce the actual cost to the employee by requiring the employer to either share the cost or take on the entire expense.

I am not in a union so my costs don't go down if theirs do. Obama promised that HCR would lower health care costs. It hasn't, it won't. I guess just another empty promise to get an agenda done. But once again, if health care costs are going to rise no matter who is in office, well then the economy is also going to fall and rise in a cyclical fashion no matter who is in office. It is how you get out of that economic slump that matters.

 

[dnno1]

I am not in a union so my costs don't go down if theirs do. Obama promised that HCR would lower health care costs. It hasn't, it won't. I guess just another empty promise to get an agenda done. But once again, if health care costs are going to rise no matter who is in office, well then the economy is also going to fall and rise in a cyclical fashion no matter who is in office. It is how you get out of that economic slump that matters.

My God man, HCR has yet to take full effect. Wait until some time after 2014 to make that statement.

 

[SentinelMind]

Health care premiums aren't rising because of unions. They are rising becasue of increasing medical costs. A lot of that has to do with new medical technologies, new medical proceedures and material expenses. Unions (if they are strong enough) actually reduce the actual cost to the employee by requiring the employer to either share the cost or take on the entire expense.

They're rising because of high utilization for expensive services that have small co-pays and are not always fully necessary. The subscriber doesn't know the value of the service he's requesting.....until it comes time for contract renewal. If insurance was assigned to individual instead of employer / groups and with co-pay restrictions, people would use services to meet their needs as opposed to meet their desires.

 

[dnno1]

They're rising because of high utilization for expensive services that have small co-pays and are not always fully necessary. The subscriber doesn't know the value of the service he's requesting.....until it comes time for contract renewal. If insurance was assigned to individual instead of employer / groups and with co-pay restrictions, people would use services to meet their needs as opposed to meet their desires.

That's part of it too, but so does more effective and costly medical technologies and an aging population (of which the high utilization of expensive services is an offshoot of). There are many factors that contribute to the rising cost of health care, but none of it can truly be blamed on trade unions. Now as far as private insurance versus group insurance goes, the group plan will always be cheaper. This is because you have a larger pool of subscribers and hence a larger pool of money that can be used for services while not all subscribers are using it at the same time. You might find some employer group insurance plans to be pretty pricey per person, but you will find that the cost per service rate to be lower with the group plan. A lot of large employers leverage their size to save million of dollars in health insurance costs that way.

 

[chaseter]

My God man, HCR has yet to take full effect. Wait until some time after 2014 to make that statement.

The Bush tax cuts have not yet expired but people aren't hiring. Why is that? Why are businesses not hiring right now? Because companies don't know what the **** is going on so they don't hire. They don't know how much their taxes are going to increase or what they are going to be in the next fiscal year. Therefore, it would be unwise to expand. Insurance companies know that they are going to get hit hard soon so they raise premiums. They already have to insure kids up to 25 years old with pre existing conditions. That is going to cause prices to increase for everyone. This is all a result of this administration. Please Acting like HCR didn't cause insurance companies to raise premiums is rofl worthy and I will guess that you support Obama raising taxes during a recession

 

[dnno1]

The Bush tax cuts have not yet expired but people aren't hiring. Why is that? Why are businesses not hiring right now? Because companies don't know what the **** is going on so they don't hire. They don't know how much their taxes are going to increase or what they are going to be in the next fiscal year. Therefore, it would be unwise to expand. Insurance companies know that they are going to get hit hard soon so they raise premiums. They already have to insure kids up to 25 years old with pre existing conditions. That is going to cause prices to increase for everyone. This is all a result of this administration. Please Acting like HCR didn't cause insurance companies to raise premiums is rofl worthy and I will guess that you support Obama raising taxes during a recession

That is not true. Businesses do not operate on tax cuts (especially for a 4% margin). Demand drives employment and there is low demand right now. If there was more demand, then employers would hire to meet the demand. Unfortunately it seems to be more cost effective right now for a business to operate overseas. That way, they avoid having to pay domestic taxes on profits made abroad until is is repatriated stateside (which could be indefinite). This behavior is also contributing to the high unemployment here in the U.S. I haven't seen the numbers on the impact of insuring children with preexisting conditions. It seem that some insurance carriers are either covering these cases or refusing to write policies altogether. Currently there is a National High Risk Pool Program sponsored by the Federal government (through DHHS) that places these people in a pool where they can get affordable high quality insurance (since it is subsidized). I don't think you know what you are talking about on that matter.

 

[BlackLantern]

I know that my doctors office is thinking about going to direct billing

 

[chaseter]

That is not true. Businesses do not operate on tax cuts (especially for a 4% margin). Demand drives employment and there is low demand right now. If there was more demand, then employers would hire to meet the demand. Unfortunately it seems to be more cost effective right now for a business to operate overseas. That way, they avoid having to pay domestic taxes on profits made abroad until is is repatriated stateside (which could be indefinite). This behavior is also contributing to the high unemployment here in the U.S. I haven't seen the numbers on the impact of insuring children with preexisting conditions. It seem that some insurance carriers are either covering these cases or refusing to write policies altogether. Currently there is a National High Risk Pool Program sponsored by the Federal government (through DHHS) that places these people in a pool where they can get affordable high quality insurance (since it is subsidized). I don't think you know what you are talking about on that matter.

Who said businesses operate on tax cuts? They operate on having a business model along with projections. You can't make a business model or make yearly projections if you don't know whether or not your taxes are going to go up 5% next year. Obama isn't instilling confidence in the economy.

Not one single, NOT ONE SINGLE, valid economic model includes a tax increase during a recession. I had the pleasure of getting to hear Ben Stein at a conference for my work and he went to town on Obama wanting to raise taxes during a recession. I for one think Ben Stein is a hell of a lot smarter than Mr. Obama.

You are right, demand is currently down but to raise demand you need to hire more people so that more people have more money to spend which increases demand. A lot of businesses can expand but they won't because of the risk factor. If you are going to raise taxes, less people will have jobs than otherwise and then demand stays the same or further decreases. You forget that the vast majority of businesses in this country have an income of greater than $250k. You really think they are going to hire more people if their taxes are going up 5% in a few months?

Rising insurance premiums is a rather no brainer. Insurance companies have to make a profit. They insure people that are less likely to get sick. People more likely to get sick have to pay more. It is common sense. Now if people that are more likely to get sick are thrown in the mix with people less likely to get sick, costs are going to go up for everyone. If a healthy man is the only client for an insurer and he is getting coverage and paying _____ amount but suddenly a really sick man is forced onto the insurer then the really sick man either has to pay a lot more or you can't insure him. If he can't pay but the government is telling you that you have to give him coverage, then you are going to make the healthy man pay more or you are going to go out of business. It is that simple.

 

[BlackLantern]

also...with a lot of the companies that downsized (mine included, we cut 30 people) companies are able to handle their workloads with current staff, and also lack of demand....so many companies don't see the need to expand or hire more

 

[chaseter]

There is no incentives to hire. What they get is a tax increase. Obama should be lowering taxes, not raising them.

 

[BlackLantern]

there really is no need, at least at my company...demand has shrunk so there isnt as much (in terms of work volume) for us to do

 

[chaseter]

Then we will never ever have economic recovery because no company will ever expand because people have less money to spend because they don't have jobs. It is an endless cycle until one changes. We needed taxes to be cut so that people can have more money to spend and so that businesses can have more money to expand.

 

[dnno1]

Who said businesses operate on tax cuts? They operate on having a business model along with projections. You can't make a business model or make yearly projections if you don't know whether or not your taxes are going to go up 5% next year. Obama isn't instilling confidence in the economy.

You just said (or at least implied) that businesses were holding off on hiring because they were not sure if their taxes were going to go up or not. If that is not what you meant, then I don't know why you made the reference to the Bush tax cuts. This is not the way to run a business nor how a business works. Employment is based on demand like I said before. If demand goes up, hiring increases to meet the demand.

Not one single, NOT ONE SINGLE, valid economic model includes a tax increase during a recession. I had the pleasure of getting to hear Ben Stein at a conference for my work and he went to town on Obama wanting to raise taxes during a recession. I for one think Ben Stein is a hell of a lot smarter than Mr. Obama.

That crap you just wrote is so funny. When the Great Depression started, we raised taxes from 24% to 76%. We continued to raise taxes over a 30 year period until it reached 92% (top marginal tax rate) in the early 1960's and we had the greatest period of expansion in the history of the country. What happened during the Clinton years when they raised taxes? All this and you know what? business had to run their business models to take into account the tax increase. I'm sorry, my friend, but you have fallen for a Republican myth and you foolishly fell for it.

You are right, demand is currently down but to raise demand you need to hire more people so that more people have more money to spend which increases demand. A lot of businesses can expand but they won't because of the risk factor. If you are going to raise taxes, less people will have jobs than otherwise and then demand stays the same or further decreases. You forget that the vast majority of businesses in this country have an income of greater than $250k. You really think they are going to hire more people if their taxes are going up 5% in a few months?

Just having money creates demand. So can government spending (just ask folks from the Regan Administration). It is not just solely hiring people. See my previous response on raising taxes.

Rising insurance premiums is a rather no brainer. Insurance companies have to make a profit. They insure people that are less likely to get sick. People more likely to get sick have to pay more. It is common sense. Now if people that are more likely to get sick are thrown in the mix with people less likely to get sick, costs are going to go up for everyone. If a healthy man is the only client for an insurer and he is getting coverage and paying _____ amount but suddenly a really sick man is forced onto the insurer then the really sick man either has to pay a lot more or you can't insure him. If he can't pay but the government is telling you that you have to give him coverage, then you are going to make the healthy man pay more or you are going to go out of business. It is that simple.

Yea, but considering the fact that a large portion of those who were denied coverage were refused for just making a doctors visit in the past it seems to me that there are a lot of people out there who are considered more likely to be sick that are not really. This means to me that not everyone will be making as many claims as you are concluding and hence it is inconclusive that their rates will be going up for that reason. Furthermore, certainly it is the goal of a business to make a profit, but HCR will ensure that 80% of the money spent on premiums are actually spent on care. It really doesn't sound too efficient if more than 20% of your money is not going towards serving you (unless I want to give them a tip).

 

[dnno1]

also...with a lot of the companies that downsized (mine included, we cut 30 people) companies are able to handle their workloads with current staff, and also lack of demand....so many companies don't see the need to expand or hire more

There is no incentives to hire. What they get is a tax increase. Obama should be lowering taxes, not raising them.

there really is no need, at least at my company...demand has shrunk so there isnt as much (in terms of work volume) for us to do

Then we will never ever have economic recovery because no company will ever expand because people have less money to spend because they don't have jobs. It is an endless cycle until one changes. We needed taxes to be cut so that people can have more money to spend and so that businesses can have more money to expand.

Companies are able to handle their workloads and have no incentive to hire because demand is low. Like I said before there is more than one way to create demand not necessarily by tax cuts. You two don't realize that these tax cuts (tied to the wealthiest in this nation) has always lead to recessions. In the 1920's Calvin Cooldige cut taxes. Sure we had the roaring '20's but it ended with the crash of 1929 and the start of the Great Depression. Ronald Regan cut taxes and increased government spending. We had that period of prosperity, but it ended in a resession. The Bush tax cuts and policies only served to increase our national debt, leave many of us jobless and started the Great Recession. I am sorry, guys, but things seemed to be better when we had a 39% marginal tax rate, a surplus, a balanced budget, and the ability to pay off our debt. I ask that you stop listening to conservative who only represent their wealthy corporate masters and parrot what is only in their best intrest not yours.

 

[Franklin Richards]

I love how the extremes in the fiscal wars always think it's time to raise all taxes or lower all taxes. Isn't it ever dynamic? Isn't it a good time to raise taxes when we're out of money. Isn't it a good time to lower taxes when we have a surplus? Are Bulls always Bulls and Bears always Bears? Don't they change according to the market?

 

[Kelly]

I'm fine with my taxes going up as long as they are not used for a bunch of ******** programs. CUT AND RAISE, with there being more cuts than raising of taxes and you will hear very little from me. No more stimulus crap....all that is stimulating is the votes of the people that he owes.

 

[Paradoxium]

Another study (and through Hotair) via Lewin Group

Families USA commissioned The Lewin Group to use its economic models to estimate how many individuals would benefit from the new premium tax credits in 2014 and the value of the dollars going to help pay for insurance (see the Methodology on page 12 for more details). We found that an estimated 28.6 million Americans will be eligible for the tax credits in 2014, and that the total value of the tax credits that year will be $110.1 billion.

In his presentation to Congress, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf predicted a cost of only $20 billion on health-exchange subsidies and associated costs. The Lewin Group, which conducted the study for Families USA, shows that four times as many people will become eligible for subsidies in 2014 than the CBO predicted in March and that the cost will be 550% higher as a result (page 4 of the linked study).

Morgen also contacted Families USA to get an explanation of the difference, and was told that he made an “apples to oranges” comparison. Why? This survey, they explained, showed how many people would be eligible, while the CBO predicted how many people would actually take advantage of their eligibility for tax credits. This is an odd distinction to make, since the entire idea of the subsidies is to encourage uninsured Americans to buy health insurance through both mandates and generous subsidies.

How likely will it be that people will pass on the notion of getting big tax credits to subsidize must-issue health insurance? And if the success rate in applying mandates, higher taxes, and more government authority to the 270 million Americans who are already insured is only 20-25% in getting the other 30 million insured, how is that at all successful?

The deficit projection given by Democrats was apparently based on 75% failure rates to get people into the system; their advocates are busy touting the massive amounts of subsidies in the program that will tip ObamaCare into a deficit exploder in Year 2.

In other words, the Democrats thinks that 75% eligible for tax credits WON'T use it.

 

[dnno1]

Got a link to the presentation where Elmendorf said $20 billion?

 

[Kelly]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11544/Presentation5-26-10.pdf

 

[BlackLantern]

Im all for suspending any tax cuts across the board for at least 2-4 years

 

[dnno1]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11544/Presentation5-26-10.pdf

That can't be the one. First of all it says nothing about only $20 billion on health insurance subsidies and, secondly, it was a presentation that was given in May of this year (the presentation that the article claims that he made was in March). I will be honest with you. I already know what Elmendorf said and he did not say that there would only be $20 billion spent on tax subsidies. What he actually said was that the impact of the reconciliation bill (at the time) was a net increase in tax subsidies of $20 billion (i.e. in addition to what was already going to be spent -- see the second bulleted item in the blog). Now, if you look at the chart shown in the May presentation (see slide 5 of your link) you will see that the difference between the projected spending under Medicaid, CHIP, and New Health Insurance Subsidies is about $50 billion. Using the $20 billion that Elmendorf estimated back in March as the increase due to HCR, that would mean that the proportionate spending on Health insurance subsidies is about $140 billion according to the CBO's numbers (just take $20 billion and divide it by $50 billion and multiply it by $350 billion). In conclusion, the article that Paradoxim cited is false and/or misleading and it apparently will be used as a talking point by conservative during the week. The Lewin Group study is actually comming in at less than the CBO's numbers by about 20% (i.e. $110 billion is around 21.4% less than $140 billion).

 

[Franklin Richards]

Critiques of CBO’s Estimates of the Effects of This Year’s Health Legislation
9
CBO has mis-estimated the effects of the changes in law.
–Some observers think that subsidies will be more expensive than we project.
–Some observers think that Medicare reforms will save more money than we project.
–CBO’s estimates take into account the views of a variety of outside experts (including those on our Panel of Health Advisers), and aim to be in the middle of the wide range of possible outcomes.
Budget conventions hide or misrepresent certain effects of the law.
–The legislation will lead to an increase in discretionary spending, which is not included in the estimates mentioned earlier.
–Cost estimates do not include any effects of legislation on overall output.
–The discretionary costs are subject to future appropriation action; some of the authorized activities may not receive funding—and others would have been funded in any event.